Indianapolis Times, Indianapolis, Marion County, 23 April 1941 — Page 12

PAGE 12

The Indianapolis Times

(A SCRIPPS-HOWARD NEWSPAPER) ROY W. HOWARD RALPH BURKHOLDER MARK FERREE President Editor . Business Manager

Price in Marion County, 3 cents a copy; delivered by carrier, 12 cents a week. Mail subscription rates

in Indiana, $3 a year; outside of Indiana, 65 cents a month.

p> RILEY 5551

Give Light and the People Will Find Then Own Way

Owned and published daily (except Sunday) by The Indianapolis Times Publishing Co., 214 W. Maryland St.

Member of United Press, Scripps-Howard Newspaper Alliance, NEA Service, and Audit Buvreau of Circulations.

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 23, 1941

STRANGE HOSTILITY

THE Italian newspapers are simply incredible. The French, complains the Giornale I'Italia, “persist in their hostile attitude toward Italy in flaunting their nonchalance and their jealousy. They lost a good opportunity to rehabilitate themselves. We will keep it in mind.” What, in the name of Mars, do the Italians expect from the French except a hostile attitude? Do they expect love? Respect? Admiration? Subservience? Cordiality? Reverence? Brotherhood! On June 10, Mussolini declared war on a France already prostrate before the German juggernaut, just one week be fore France's final collapse. He never even gave any reason, never cited any provocation, beyond a jackal desire to be in at the kill. That the French should “persist in a hostile attitude” is not strange. The French, too, have a few things which they undoubtedly will keep in mind.

TOO LATE NOW

NOTHER thought on the steel price “freeze” ordered by price Administrator Henderson after steel wages were boosted 10 per cent: Mr. Henderson seems to think most of the steel companies can pay the wage increase and still make adequate profits at present prices. So it must be his theory that prices were more than adequate before wages went up. If prices were more than adequate, and had continued so, they would have meant big profits, most of which the Government would later have taken in taxes. Instead the companies will give a large part of this money to labor, from which the Government will take a smaller portion in taxes. But suppose the Government had said to the steel companies a month ago: “Give this money to the public in lower prices for steel. Steel is an element of cost in practically every item of the defense program and, directly or indirectly, in virtually every item of civilian consumption. The market place looks to the price of steel as sheep look to the bellwether. “A reduction in the price of steel, at this particular time, would be one of the best things that could happen in this country. It would inevitably restrain prices of other basic commodities, of manufactured goods, of what the ultimate consumer buys. It would make more remote the danger of an upward spiral of prices in general and of a boost in the cost of living.” The Government didn’t say that. Perhaps it didn’t have the authority. But Mr. Henderson seems confident of the Government's authority to tell steel companies what they must do about prices—after steel wages have been raised and the danger of an upward price spiral has come closer.

THERE IS ONLY ONE CANADA

FEW things the President has done will be more popular than the new defense production agreement with Canada. : If any fact in all this world welter of uncertainties is clear, it is that the life and destiny of the United States and Canada are interwoven for better or for worse. It is decreed by geography. It is sustained by common "language and ideals. It is cemented stronger through the years by economic forces. Even the periodic outbursts of Yankee imperialists, which are as unrepresentative of our democracy as they are insulting to our free neighbors, only occasionally sully that deeper partnership they cannot destroy. But even the best relationship of such nations can be made better. Particularly when the sheer size of one creates problems for the other—and thus for both. With us and Canada this is the case culturally and economically. Ours would be even a healthier and happier relationship if less lop-sided; if, in the mutually profitable interchange of ideas and goods, we took more of what Canada has to give. What she can take from us is limited by what we take from her. In money terms she has been buying from us from a quarter to a third of a billion a year more than we buy from her. That debit is a serious problem even in so-called normal times, when it can be balanced partially by a three-cornered trade involving England. Now, however, with the huge defense purchases of England and Canada here the problem of unfavorable trade balance and dollar shortage is multiplied. We cannot provide Canada with dollars directly, for loans to belligerents are ruled out by the Neutrality Law. = ® ® So the situation not only increases her financial strain and decreases her opportunity for capacity production, it also restricts joint defense efforts and further unbalances our economic relations. This is the problem President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Mackenzie King are tackling in their effort for fuller economic and financial co-operation, of which the Hyde Park agreement is only the start. Details of the agreement are not known. In general, however, it is explained officially that we shall buy from her more defense products, roughly equal to the present unfavorable trade balance; and that she will use this $300,000,000, or so, for additional purchases here. How well such an arrangement will work is for the experts and time to tell. We don’t know. But we believe public opinion here almost unanimously will welcome every intelligent effort of Washington and Ottawa to lubricate and improve the exchange mechanism of our economic and defense partnership. In addition to what the two governments can plan, of course there is much that individuals can do. By “buying Canadian” and—at least for the lucky ones—vacationing in the Dominion, we can help them; and so help ourselves by providipg them with dollars ® buy even more United

States ucts

Mippon Dilemma

By William Philip Simms

Hitler Expects Japan to Start a War Scare in South Pacific but Tokyo Weighs Effect on U. S.

ASHINGTON, April 23. —Hard-pressed by Hitler, now said to be demanding action in support of the Axis, Japan is expected to launch a war-scare in the South Pacific in the very near future. Whereupon she would likely receive one of the surprises of her life from the United States. Upon Nippon’s first really hostile move in that direction, there is reason to believe the United States would (a) increase its aid to China; (b) cease its almost normal trade wtih Japan, and (c), send additional units of its Pacific Fleet to the Far East. Experts here agree there is a close relation between the South Pacific and the fighting now going on in Greece and Egypt. Should Hitler win control of the eastern Mediterranean, including Suez and Iraq, the position of the British Empire would become critical. Australia and New Zealand would be menaced along with Singapore and the Dutch East Indies. Axis submarines might begin to swarm in the Indian Ocean, South Africa’s position, both foreign and domestic, woulg be weakened and the peril to England herself wold be greater than ever. = » ”

T prevent any such disaster in and around the Middle East, therefore, the British sorely need additional men and material in that sector, Most of the men must come from Australia and New Zealand, and much of the material from Canada and the United States. But if Japan threatens Singapore, the Dutch East Indies and the Philippines, the Nazi general staff figure, the needed reinforcements will not be sent and the Axis’ job will be correspondingly easier. The attitude of the United States toward Japan in the next few weeks, therefore, may be decisive. In the first place, it is said, Japan cannot now engage in a large-scale war with any real hope of success without some help from the United States. : Before the war, Japan obtained 54.4 per cent of her war materials from the United States, some 22 percent from the British Empire, 9 per cent from Netherlands’ Indies and 3 per cent from Germany. Since. the war, Japan has been receiving almost no war materials from the belligerents hence has been more than ever dependent upon the United States. Before the war, for example, we supplied her with 62 per cent of her petroleum. After the war with 85 per cent. Before the war, we provided her with 85 per cent of her scrap iron. Since the war with 95 per cent. For ferro-alloys the percentages were, respectively, 79 per cent and 88 per cent and for copper 90 and 99 per cent. Moreover, we supplied Japan with the bulk of her cotton and bought, in return, most of her silk. A ban on silk and other importations would cut off Nippon's chief source of foreign credits while a total embargo on war materials of all categories would cripple, if not paralyze, her war efforts. = 2d =

Coronas has given the President full authority to prohibit or curtail the export of war supplies whenever he considers it necessary in the interest of national defense. Patently a warlike move on the part of Japan toward the United States would call for such a ban. Nations whose interests are about to be attacked by another will hardly provide the offending nation with the requisite ammunition.

Japan cannot hope to receive appreciable supplies | let the workers take a vote on it,

from Germany at this time. Italy, her other Axis partner, can send none because she, herself, is dependent upon Germany. The Soviet Union, Japan's newest treaty partner, might provide certain materials but not nearly enough to meet Nippon's needs should she become involved in war with a major power. Few here, therefore, believe Japan will go quite as far in the South Pacific as Germany wants—at least, not unless and until the war takes a decided turn for the worse, so far as Britain and the United States are concerned. On the other hand, many believe she will undertake certain warlike gestures. If she does, she will just as certainly find the United States standing firm. Washington would ask Tokyo for an immediate clarification of purpose and unless it was forthcoming, or in the event it proved unsatisfactory, the President would probably exercise his above-mentioned prerogative.

(Westbrook Pegler is on vacation)

Business By John T. Flynn

Tax Experts Welcome Increase in Levies Proposed by Morgenthau

EW YORK, April 23.—Certainly the decision of Secretary Morgenthau and the party leaders in Congress to go “all-out” for taxes to pay the national defense plus the war program will be commended by every tax authority. Stated very briefly, the Secretary explains that in the coming vear we will spend the tidy sum of 19 billion dollars. The Secretary thinks that two-thirds of this should be paid out of taxes and one-third should be borrowed. This means that in the coming year we must raise $12,667,000,000 in taxes and horrow $6,333,000,000. What this means may be seen from the smount of income taxes paid during the year 1939-40, which is the latest for which we have returns. The total taxes paid in that year were $5924,000000. So that in the next fiscal year we will be expected to pay about 110 per cent more in taxes than we did last year. The payment of taxes in the current year is now in progress. What it will be we cannot say. But taxes have been increased since last year, and tine Secretary estimates that with the rates now in effect plus the increased income due to improved business the Government can collect $9,223,000,000. Therefore, on top of the increases now in effect he proposes to add another $3,500,000,000. Even this vast tax will not provide enough to pay the national defense bills of the United States and the war bills of England.

Hence we will have to borrow almost twice as much |

as we did last year. = = =

EVERAL observations must be made about this. | First, it is certainly a step in the right direction. | The higher the tax content in the public revenues as |

against borrowing the less will be the boom and hence the less the danger from inflation.

Second, it is a mistake, however, to suppose that |

we are really guarding ourselves against inflation while we still raise a third of our revenues—over six billion dollars—by borrowing. Third, the danger can be mitigated by doing the borrowing out of the funds of the people and keeping

the Government paper out of the banks. That is, | the paper should not be placed with the banks by |

the Government, and the individuals who take Government paper should be restrained by some device from using it at the banks for loans. Fourth, the Secretary’s figures are based upon a total of 19 billion dollars as our expenditures. But there is certainly no insurance that they will remain at this figure. First of all, there is the immediate danger of a sizable increase from the fa parity payments that Congress is debating and which the Secretary recognizes. Second, there is the almost certain danger that the whole American defense and British war program will very greatly increase in amount due to price increases which are inevitable and to further appropriations. And finally, there is the danger of a terrifying increase—which may be double—if we become involved in the war.

So They Say—

WHETHER OR NOT we have gone farther than . we should to date, we can’t stop now. I say now, we Fry A. Walsh, vice presi-

INDIANAPOLIS TIMES

Toreador!

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 23, 1941

The Hoosier Forum

1 wholly disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.—Voltaire.

VOICES OPPOSITION TO DAYLIGHT SAVING By Mrs. G. W., 1210 Central Ave. Yes, W. H. Edwards, you are surely right about daylight saving time. I say, why change the clocks? If a factory, store, office or other business wants to work an hour earlier and quit an hour earlier, why not

then if they decide they want it, let them come to work at 7 instead of 8, quit at four instead of 5, ete. Why bother other people and the clocks? People who do not go to work until 9 o'clock (and some 10 or 11) and quit at 4 or 5 and sbme at 2 p. m, of course, they are for it,

be on the job at 6 a. m., some earlier? They really are the ones who need that hour's sleep mornings. . . « I say down with daylight saving time, for it is no good for the common man.

s = = CLAIMS COURT RULING AIDS LABOR RACKETEERS By W. H. Edwards, Spencer. We have, in this country, two sets of “Termites” fighting tooth and nail for spoils. One set, generally designated as “Wall Street” was built up into economic power by

groups. The other group was built up by the will of the people, in order to have a counteracting effect on the first group of termites. This

last group has grown so in power that they have become more threatening to the American way of life than had the first named, Wall Street group. Concentration of economic power in the hands of any man or any group of men becomes dangerous to the general welfare of any government. Concentration of wealth and power into the hands of a relatively small group of financiers and industrialists was the prime cause of the debacle into which we, the people, were cast in 1929, resulting in mass gambling on the stock and commodity exchanges of our country. The reaction has come, not only against the Wall Street influences, but against the National Government as well; and we, the innocent bystanders, the people, are having to pay heavily, while our National Government is being challenged in

but what about those who have to|

pressure groups allied with political |

(Times readers are invited to express their these columns, religious controversies excluded. Make your letters short, s& all can have a chance. Letters must be signed.)

views in

heritage of liberty passed on to us by the sacrifices of our forefathers. The Constitution of the United States, our basic law, is thrown into the scrap heap, not by the people, but by the Supreme Court, whose duty it was to guard that document. ... The Bill of Rights, the strong braces of the Constitution, is construed to protect labor racketeers, not the general public. The time has come to test whether the labor racketeers are stronger than the U. S. Government. If they prove to be the stronger, then we should not be mortgaging the future to defend our liberties; we had just as well tell Adolph Hitler to come over and take peaceable possession. No wonder the Hitlerites say that the United States will be the easiest country to conquer.

8 # & AMAZED BY SUCCESS OF PANZER DIVISIONS By Claude Braddick, Kokomo. To anyone familiar with the tactics of war, as heretofore practiced, the achievements of Hitler's panzer divisions must be truly amazing. Twenty-five years ago a charging army dare not push itself toc far into enemy territory in a long and narrow salient. It faced the necessity of widening the bulge as it went, or the imminent peril of finding itself in a trap. Moreover, it must consolidate its gains quickly, brace itself with fresh reserves to defend the inevitable counter-attack. But in complete disregard of this, Hitler runs a “finger” unbelievably long and narrow, deep into enemy territory, and holds it for days on end against vastly superior numbers —as he did after the break-through at Sedan—and nobody pinches him off, and nobody counter-attacks! Why? Are the Allied forces so appallingly weak, or is there some other reason as yet undisclosed? Whatever the reason, the importance of discovering and obviating it—from the Allied standpoint—

its efforts to protect and defend the cannot be overestimated. Even those

Side Glances=By Galbraith

.y

DARLY-TRU

COPS. 1941 BY NEA SERVICE, INC. T. MW. U. 8. PAT. OFF.

- "| see old Hod is off the wagon—he's printing the letter B + backwards again!” ;

NEWS-SULLETIN o GERLIN-APRIL w

vs

Sm — — — ~

, —

NEW YC =

sgn 8 4-13

2

who stolidly insist that sea power will win any war must be profoundly disturbed. For unless these panzer thrusts are curbed, Hitler will soon control the seas, not by the conventional method of owning the biggest navy, but by the amazing expedient of capturing all its ports and harbors by land!

” ” ” ASKING SOME QUESTIONS OF DEFENSE COMMITTEE By G. K. Smith, 218 S. Audubon Rd. Now that the brickbats have been duly exchanged, maybe we can get down to the more concrete problems of national defense. Since Chairman Ogle confesses that he and his committee speak “authoritatively” on such matters, maybe he can tell us what ought to be done

about the more prosaic, less spectacular phases of modern warfare. Does Mr. Ogle have the necessary candor to urge the immediate hike of income taxes to the 40 per cent level which is the British Government’s present “take”? The writer believes that such action is mandatory in order to preserve our financial and social bulwarks against complete bankruptcy.

Why doesn’t Mr. Ogle wax indignant over the unpatriotic actions of the C. I. O. in holding up production of our defense effort? Is it because . . . he is too absorbed in the more lofty, emotional aspects of the situation? Most patriotic Americans find a good deal more to criticize in this paralysis of our defense program than all of Hjtler's aggressions put together, despite the high pressure, tear jerking of such minority groups as the Indiana Committee for National Defense. Another question—What has this committee ever suggested, let alone act, on the problem of cementing diplomatic and military alliances with our South American neighbors? Those who truly qualify as foreign policy and defense experts say this phase is a very potential Achilles heel in our defense anatomy. But perhaps such minor details as these are too humdrum to occupy the attention of experts who roam the ethereal planes of “national honor,” “prestige,” *“AngloSaxon racial superiority” and other such emotion begetting devices which differ not one whit from those used so successfully by Adolf Hitler. Let not anyone accuse any other American of being anything less than supremely willing to sacrifice his life in defense of the continental United States and its newly acquired naval bases. Rather let him admit that any such fiasco as we ex-

.|perienced in the first World War is

the grossest profanation of the word “patriotism” as defined in the hearts of all liberty-loving Americans.

TOMORROW By FRANCES RICHMOND

What is tomorrow, but the shadow of today? Always so near yet so far away We spend a lifetime in fear we borrow Looking for troubles that may come tomorrow. Why not enjoy our blessings today For the things we expect don't happen alway If we'll only wait till tomorrow they say We can have all the things we wish for today So all through the years we wait in vain For when tomorrow comes it's today again. We can only live one day at a time ‘ Why not wait till tomorrow to fret and whine Only then could we make life pay For when tomorrow comes, it's always today.

DAILY THOUGHT

Blessed be the Lord God, the God of Israel, who only doeth wondrous things.—Psalms 72:18. ; 2 = =»

TO RECEIVE honestly is the best thanks for a good

thing. —George|

Gen. Johnson Says—

Leon Henderson's Action in Fixing Steel Prices a Good Start, but He Should Have Much Wider Powers.

ASHINGTON, April 23.—The almost unanimous press and editorial query on Leon Henderson's bold ceiling over steel prices was “how can you do that and not put a ceiling over both wages and the price of everything else which contrikutes not only to the cost of steel but also to the great composite of all prices which makes up the price (or cost) of living?” The answer to that one is easy. It is “you can’t.” Nobody knows that better than Mr. Henderson. But a start had to be made somewhere and he moved courageously and immediately to start where it would do the most good. He did it intelligently on a formula that must govern all price-ceilings— “Stop here, if there are cases of individual hardship, bring them in and we will permit adjustments to prevent confisca= tion.” The only other way is to let all prices sky= rocket—as they will in war—and try to punish the unjust profiteers as their prices get too far ahead. That is locking the stable after the horse is stolen. It is losing any possibility of control in the torrential’. whirlpool of inflation. Once that process starts in all its infinity of infinitesimal streams, no matter how strong the control, it is like a lion roaring against a. great swarm of locusts sweeping downwind to over=whelm him. A few stick in his mane or are even swale lowed but the swarm drifts over him and he is powerless to check it.

o # 8

R. HENDERSON could stop this principal stream of inflationary influence for long. enough to look around, by various indirect authorities——priorities of transportation and supply and the threat of commandeering. He couldn't stop them all because he has. not as yet sufficient statutory authority. He should be granted that authority without delay. It is simpler than it sounds. Here is the form of statute offered in 1931 by B. M. Baruch, a man who has more personal war-time economic experience than any other living person. It authorized the President to set a day, the entire existing price structure of which should serve as a “ceiling” and then provided that thereafter, “the highest market price, as of such proclaimed day, at any place within the United States, for any service, right or thing, except for the fee estate in real property, shall be deemed . . . the fair market price for the same or a similar service, right or thing at the same place or in similar circumstances . and thereafter, . . . it shall be unlawful for any person to buy, sell or otherwise contract for any serv« ice, right or thing at a price higher than fair market price in effect as of such day.” 8 » on HIS is no “freezing” of prices or “fixing” of prices except as they were “fixed” by normal economic influences before abnormal war influences moved in to distort the normal price pattern. It merely fixes a “ceiling” over both prices and wages. They will fall as they may beneath that ceiling. If any groups can show a real justification for an increase in price of their product above that ceiling—and many can—the proposed statute provided for that by a simple and swift procedure. The “expository” statute also proposed methods for the immediate rectification with “just compensation” of any inadvertent or incidental confiscatory effect of its application. Mr. Henderson should have that kind of authority “immediately if not sooner.” What is being dis~ cussed here is, in the interest of the common man and the country as a whole, problem number one in these tragic times. What could be saved for our defensive strength and daily enjoyment by fair and competent price control as compared with what could be lost by price inflation and taxes piled upon taxes are as heaven contrasted with hell, It might mean the difference between national solvency and national bankruptcy—between victory and defeat—between preservation for our children, of some semblance of the America we received free from our fathers and the ruin of it at our hands. There can be no exaggeration of this problem. The first consideration of everybody should be to support, uphold and implement Mr. Henderson. His is the most important job in the Government just now.

A Woman's Viewpoint By Mrs. Walter Ferguson

0. childless couples have a better chance to stay happily married than those with children? Per= haps this may seem an academic question, but is is important enough to demand an answer from in- , dividuals as well as national leaders. “Yes,” says Mrs. Edith Roberts, Chicago novelist, aged 30, divorced and the mother of one child, adding: “When the marital chamber becomes a nure sery, happiness flies out of the window.” It seems to me that might depend a little upon who occupied the marital chamber, but it has enough truth for moderns to make us feel uncomfortable, For we have created a civilization which, because it is so discouraging to family life, puts an ever increasing burden of discontent upon its citizenship. Nobody can dény that existence in a small city apartment, filled with several infants, while the wolf howls just around the corner, is an unpleas« ant, even a tragic business. As a consequence, we have individuals promoting the dangerous thesis that we can build personal happiness without children, and that smbitious, talented women ought not to sacrifice their ambitions and tal« ents for motherhood. And so long as the lower classes are prolific, it is said, why worry about population decreases? We don’t. But we do worry a little about this trend which ‘seems perilous to national welfare and to the happiness of women in general. For by it we confess we have become or are fast becoming abe normal, sterile human beings, moving into a decadent culture. ; It is a truism to say that well-endowed children are essential to a nation’s progress, and equally trite to insist that meh and women fail to find katisfaction in a life which lacks contact with them. But the eternal verities are always trite. And when man moves too far from them into sophisticated realms, he finds the wings of his spirit clipped and his heart hungry for the sustenance Nature prescribes. No matter how brilliant or gifted women may be, they will find the fruits of their toil bitter as wormswood if they leave family life out of their design for living. ’ Editor's Note: The views expressed by columnists in this newspaper are their own. They are not necessarily those of The Indianapolis Times.

Questions and Answers

(The Indianapolis Times Service Burean will answer any question of fact or informatiom, not involving extensive ree search. Write your questions glearly, sign name and address, inclose a three-cent postage stamp. Medion) or legal advice eannot be given. “Address The Times Washington Service Bureau, 1013. Thirteenth St., Washington, 0, C.). Q—Which son of President Theodore Roosevelt was killed in an air battle in the first Word War? What kind of a plane was he flying? A—Quentin Roosevelt. was shot down and Killed behind the German lines, July 14, 1018, He was flying a Nieuport 28 with a Ghome engine. The plane bore the insignia of the 95th Aero Squadron, a bucking broncho. ¥ Q—Who were named the .10 most popular movie stars during 1940? : A—The Motion Picture Herald's survey of Hollywood’s biggest ‘money-making stars of last year named the following as the leading 10: 1, Mickey Rooney; 2, Spencer Tracy; 3, Clark Gable: 4, Gene Autry; 5, Tyrone Power; 6, James Cagney; 7. Bing Crosby; 8, Wallace Beery; 9, Bette Davis; 10, Judy Garland. dats Q—Where are the largest deposits of potash salts? .* A—Prussia, Germany,